The sight of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) visiting the Kremlin for Russia’s World War II Victory Day parade has rekindled the idea that China might finally pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine.
However, it has been more than three years since Russia invaded its neighbor and little suggests that China is willing to support good-faith peace negotiations.
In fact, China has continued to back Russia diplomatically, economically and militarily. The Chinese government avoids referring to Putin’s aggression as an “invasion” and even though it has not formally recognized Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, it has repeatedly abstained from UN votes condemning Putin’s war.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
Publicly, China echoes Russia’s narrative, blaming NATO and the West for the conflict. Chinese officials and state media accuse the US of being “the real provocateur of the Ukrainian crisis” and have warned it against further confrontation.
For his part, Xi has shown no signs of reconsidering the Sino-Russia “all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership for the new era.” Over the past three years, he and Putin have met nine times in person — more than any other two world leaders. Shortly after US President Donald Trump’s inauguration this year, Xi and Putin pledged that their countries would “deepen strategic coordination, firmly support each other and defend their legitimate interests.”
Xi’s state visit this month came as China was rallying support in opposing Trump’s tariff war.
Economically, China has extended Russia a lifeline as Western sanctions have intensified. Sino-Russian bilateral trade soared from US$147 billion in 2021 to a record US$245 billion last year. Chinese consumer products, notably automobiles and smartphones, rapidly poured in as Western brands withdrew. By early 2023, Chinese smartphones accounted for more than 70 percent of the Russian market.
Similarly, China is poised to import more energy from Russia this year (likely at heavily discounted prices), which will help the Kremlin finance its war effort. Since 2023, Russia has become China’s top crude oil supplier. Despite the risk of penalties, small regional Chinese banks have continued processing payments for sanctioned Russian banks and companies. While China has not openly provided direct lethal aid, it has exported to Russia a steady stream of dual-use items, notably microchips essential for precision-guided weaponry.
Despite its close ties with Russia, China has tried to present itself as a peacemaker. In February 2023, it released a peace framework; and in May last year, it partnered with Brazil on a six-point initiative to end the war. A Chinese special envoy has since visited several countries, including Russia and Ukraine, to promote the proposal, but China’s plans amount to lofty principles with little substance. It is less interested in ending the war than in winning goodwill across the Global South and refurbishing its image in Europe.
Why should it be otherwise? China benefits strategically as long as the war stays within Ukraine, the nuclear risk remains low and its “unlimited partner,” Russia, does not lose. The conflict diverts US attention from the Indo-Pacific region, giving China more room to advance its interests. It has also deepened Russia’s political and economic dependence on China, improving China’s access to Russian resources via routes beyond the US Navy’s reach.
Meanwhile, Chinese firms in strategic sectors, such as the drone-makers DJI, EHang and Autel, have cashed in by selling products to both sides. In early 2023, direct drone shipments to Ukraine exceeded US$200,000, while shipments to Russia topped US$14.5 million. Despite sanctions, DJI’s drones continued reaching Russian forces through smaller distributors in China, the Middle East and Europe.
Even if China was truly open to facilitating peace talks, Ukraine would remain rightly skeptical of its neutrality. Xi has ignored Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s repeated requests to meet and did not speak with him until April 2023 — more than a year after Russia’s invasion. China showed limited interest in Ukraine’s 10-point peace formula, released in November 2022, and it skipped a global summit (attended by 92 countries) on the issue in June last year.
Instead, China released its joint peace proposal with Brazil, which Ukraine saw as an attempt to undermine its own peace formula and another sign that China is more interested in advancing its own agenda than in ending the war.
The US has little leverage to change China’s position. More tariffs or sanctions could backfire. China might align even more closely with Russia to thwart US negotiations and strengthen its yuan-based financial system, undermining US sanctions and economic clout.
Still, Trump could appeal to Xi’s desire for global stature. By offering China a major role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, the US would grant China’s leadership the prestige it craves.
Moreover, China would become an invested stakeholder in Ukraine’s security, providing a more sustainable deterrent against future Russian aggression.
Ukraine has been part of Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) since 2017. Before Russia’s invasion, China had nearly US$3 billion in BRI-related contracts in Ukraine and had leased up to 10 percent of Ukraine’s farmland. Those investments were likely wiped out, but China did not protest; its economic loss was inconsequential compared with its strategic gains from the war.
A lasting peace could tempt China to return. Ukraine’s industrial, energy, infrastructure and agriculture sectors offer new markets for Chinese firms squeezed by overcapacity at home and rising tariffs abroad. Giving China a stake in Ukraine’s reconstruction could transform it from a passive pro-Russia bystander into an active participant in peacemaking.
The reconstruction bill will be too large for the West to foot on its own. A year ago, the World Bank estimated the costs at US$486 billion (about 2.6 percent of China’s GDP last year) over the next decade and the price tag has only risen since then. The West will have no choice but to seek assistance, including from the Gulf states and China.
However, the first task is to encourage China’s interest in engagement. Perhaps the only way to do that is to convince China’s leaders that the US will not accept Ukraine’s capitulation and will continue to support it until a just settlement is reached.
Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a research academic at the MacMillan Center and cofounder of the Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies program at Yale University, and a former senior director for Russia at the US National Security Council. Zongyuan Zoe Liu (劉宗媛), senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, is adjunct assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
RSS